N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SEDA ZAKAR

YAN, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72439 Age n c y No. A095-732-156
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2018 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, ** Distric t Judge
. Se da Zak a ry an (Zaka

ry an) pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision by

the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing he r a ppe a l of a n Im m igra tion Judge de c ision de ny ing he r a

pplic a tions for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. 

# FIL ED
M AY 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion.The pivota l issue i n this c a se is whe the r Za ka ry an re c e ive d a d e quat e notic e of he r ne e d to provide c orrobora ting e vide nc e by way of te stim ony

of he r son. In Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th C ir. 2011), we he ld tha t “ an IJ m ust provide an a

pplic ant with notic e and a n opportunity

to e ithe r produc e the e v ide nc e
or e xpla in why

it is una va ila ble be fore ruling tha

t the a pplic ant ha s fa ile d in his obliga tion to provide c o rroborative e vide nc e an d the re fore fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proof.” The gove rnm e n t re lie s on the IJ’ s sta te m e nt to Za

ka ry an a t a he aring on M ay 6, 2011, la

rge l y re fe re nc ing the da

u ghte r-in-la

w. The IJ a dvise d the pa

rtie s a s follows: Se pa

ra t e and a pa rt from any finding of c re dibility , I c ould c onc lude tha

t [Za ka ry an ha s] fa ile d to sa

tisfy he r burde n of proof if she fa ils to pre se nt re a sona bly a va ila ble c orrobora tive e vide nc e . . . . Tha t goe s for live witne sse s a s we l l. If the da ughte r-in-la

w re fuse s to te s tify or re fuse s to e xe c u te a

wa ive r of c onfide ntia lity , doe s tha t m a ke he r unava ila

ble for the re sponde nt? Proba bly , but I don’ t know. At the se c ond he aring, a y e ar la te r, the IJ a ga in a dvise d tha t he “ c ould
c onc lude tha

t [Za k ary an ] fa ile d to sa

tisfy he r burde n of proof if she fa ils to pre se nt
re a s ona bly a va ila ble c orrobora ting e vide nc e .” The IJ c h a n ge d the ve nue to La s

2Ve ga s, whe re Zaka ry an a nd he r son we re re s iding, e xpre ssing his be lie f “ that the son is a ke y witne s s in the c a se .” In 2014, two y e a

rs a fte r the se c ond he aring, the third he aring c om m e n c e d in La s Ve ga s. B y

this tim e , the da

ughte r-in-la

w ha d unfortuna

te ly pa sse d away . C ounse l for Za

ka ry an a dvise d the IJ tha

t the son wa s “ having . . . ve ry se rious proble m s, sinc e the wife ha s pa sse d aw ay ,” and tha

t c o unse l “ wa s not sure tha t he [would] be a

ble to te s tify .” The IJ inquire d whe the r the son wa s pre se n t in the Unite d Sta t e s a nd whe the r he wa s a

la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt, but m a de no m e ntion of theson be ing
a m andatory

c orrobora t ing witne ss. R a the r, the IJ sta te d his a ssum

ption tha t Za ka ry an wa s “ not re que sting a c o ntinua nc e for he r son . . . to te stify .” Zak ary an’ s
c ounse l re sponde d: “ [O] nc e a ga in Your Honor, the issue is tha

t he wa s not a witne s s of the e ve nts tha

t took pla c e in Arm e nia be c a use he a lre a dy le ft Arm e nia .” Inste a d of giving notic e tha t he c o nside re d the son to be a m a ndatory
c orrobora ting witne ss, the IJ m e re ly re plie d tha t “ to upda te the re c ord, the n, we would just ne e d the la t e st Hum an R ights R e port for Arm e nia .” Za ka ry an wa s the only

witne ss who te stifie d. Following her te stim ony , the IJ ga v e he r no notic e of the ne e d for c orrobora ting e vide nc e , de spite Za ka ry an’ s
c ounse l’ s re que st for a te ntative ruling. Ne ve rthe le ss, without m a king a spe c ific
3a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ion, the IJ de nie d re lie f on the ba sis of the fa i lure of Za ka ry an’ s son to “ a

ppe ar a nd te stify .” Tha

t de nia l wa s c o nfirm e d by the B IA. The IJ did not give

suffic ie nt notic e to Za

ka ry an unde r Re n . The oblique
re fe re n c e s to the son m a de by the IJ did not put Za

k ary an on notic e tha

t she wa s a t risk of losing he

r c la i m unle ss she produc e d he r son a s a c orrobora ting witne ss. W e are not pe rsua de d by

the gove rnm e nt’ s re l ia

nc e on Re n , 648 F.3d a

t 1092 n.12. Tha t note m e re ly

obse rve s tha

t the notic e re quire m e n t doe s not “ ne c e ssa rily re quire two he arings.” Id . He re , no a dditiona l he aring would ha ve be e n re quire d

if prope r notic e ha d

be e n give n in the prior two he arings. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

4